"First off, the people you're quoting on UBI are not the same people as you're quoting on calling fetuses parasites."

well they have not explicitly said so but i'm pretty sure that the vast majority of democrats in support of ubi are also in support of abortion and abortion at its very core is a process which treats unborn babies as if they are unwanted parasites

do you deny that?

"This is a basic part to whole fallacy. "

no that's not really true and i've addressed why above

"Secondly, you're confusing metaphor and literal. The people are above are arguing that fetus are literal parasites (or pretty close at least). For argument's sake let's just agree that UBI reception equals metaphorical parasitism. That doesn't mean I have to have the same opinion on that as I do for literal parasitism."

this has nothing to do with confusing literal and metaphorical

the people i quoted are using unborn babies as metaphors for parasites because and this is the most relevant part they take resources from another entity and restrict the bodily autonomy of that entity

i'm saying that a parallel can be drawn between this and when the same people argue that we need to take more resources from certain people and give those resources to other people causing a restriction in bodily autonomy in the first group of people as a result

i don't see how you can try to deny the clear comparison being done here, i can of course understand the motivation but the outright denial? that's surprising to me

"For example, children can easily be thought of as metaphorical parasites (in most cases). Tapeworm are a literal parasite. I have a very different opinion on how each should be handled."

that's great, but that's not really relevant to the argument i made since here you are showing different methods of handling seemingly similar situations whereas in my case i showed how the methods used (siphoning resources from the haves to the have nots) are similar in handling the situations i brought up

you essentially built a strawman, torched it and said "AHA! got you!" 

"This is an argument by analogy fallacy."

it would be if you actually addressed what i posted instead of attacking a strawman

"Beyond the very abstract concept of one organism benefiting from another"

well that's your opinion, if you don't think the two can be compared well that's ok, we can agree to disagree

i personally think its pretty darn clear that there is an obvious correlation here

to reiterate, the baby needs resources from the mother to survive, however, this impacts negatively on the mother because she loses resources to the baby and her bodily autonomy is restricted

the poor according to democrats need resources from other people to survive, however, this impacts negatively on those people because they lose resources to the poor and their bodily autonomy is restricted(more work is required to gather resources for example)

you appear to be arguing that you can look at these two situations and not see the clear connection between them and that's ok

" these situations are so far removed from one another that it's ridiculous to suggest that an opinion on one should inform an opinion on the other."

well lets try to isolate the similarities between them for a minute ok?

1. Person cannot gather the resources needed to survive on their own

2. The person requires resources from another to survive

3. Resources are channeled from haves to have nots

4. Bodily autonomy is restricted in the haves as a result

differences

1. haves/have nots can be plural in one instance but are always singular in the other

2. ...

"As was said before, if the fetus can survive independently outside the womb"

do you think the rich should pay more taxes in keeping with their responsibility to their communities?

I'm going to tell you point blank NO this isn't a fair comparison at all, in fact you'd have better luck comparing apples to oranges or apples to steak for that matter. Before I tell you why you're wrong OP answer me this, are you pro-choice or anti-choice and why?

As for me, I'm pro-choice. It's the woman's body so she should be able to decide what to do with it and have final say. Men have control over their body, so should women. It's that simple. If you're against abortion, here's a simple tip, don't get one!

"If you have female reproductive organs, you have a say."

what is a word that i can use to identify people like that?

"Before I tell you why you're wrong OP answer me this, are you pro-choice or anti-choice and why?"

i actually think women should be free to murder their unborn children

"It's the woman's body so she should be able to decide what to do with it and have final say. "

fair enough, do you think rich people should pay more taxes in keeping with their responsibility to their communities?

You didn't answer my question, why do you think that way?

And yes, the very wealthy should be taxed more to better our society as a whole. There's no reason in a civilized society that multi-billionaires, whose profit comes at the expense of the people, should be treated better and be able to get huge tax cuts and breaks while the very same people that they profited off of die because they can't afford healthcare. It's a give and take relationship and so far the wealthiest have just been taking, they need to give back to the society that propped them up in the first place.

In many countries around the world, single mums have heaps of kids and get fully paid by government. Why should tax payers support lifestyle choices? Women from low social classes have the most children and the hard workers of middle and high social classes foot the tax bill of the welfare that goes towards the lifestyle of single mum's having kids on welfare. Abortion helps reduce the number of single mum's and saves on welfare spending that comes from tax payers. Abortion gives women choice to do what ever they want to do with their bodies but it helps saves welfare money that goes towards supporting a single mother dependent on welfare.

It's better to drop the Fetus than the Baby.

I support overturning abortion freedoms. I don't really care about it being a "women's right" since every women in my family is pro-life anyway. Any and all rights are decided by a society and not some moral system. Morally speaking abortion is murder, and I will never see it as different. It breaks my heart that even mentally handicapped children are aborted in places like Iceland. The cost of someone like that is high on society, but not nearly that high on a first world nation with seemingly infinite power and resources to feed the entire population and a welfare state. I would support UBI before abortion for sure. I am not that fiscally conservative anyway since while I am pro-capitalist, I oppose the free market. 

Agreed on the first part.

For the second part: no, UBI is not implemented in any country. There are though some experiments and more locally placed implementation, notably in north america (native americans through casino money and the Alaska Permanent Fund).

https://www.wired.com/story/free-money-the-surprising-effects-of-a-basic-income-supplied-by-government/

https://qz.com/1205591/a-universal-basic-income-experiment-in-alaska-shows-employment-didnt-drop/